• Home
  • Blog EN
  • Blog DE
  • 4M
  • Homegrown
  • About
  • Home
  • Blog EN
  • Blog DE
  • 4M
  • Homegrown
  • About
The Future of Work & Education

Martin Ford, Enlightened marxist or apoCAlyptic technocrat?

5/2/2017

Comments

 
Picture
170502_marxism_2.0_–_martin_ford_enlightened_marxist_or_apocalyptic_technocrat___.docx
File Size: 428 kb
File Type: docx
Download File

Marxism 2.0 – Martin Ford, enlightened marxist or an apocalyptic technocrat?

Martin Ford is a Silicon Valley software entrepreneur and to put it simply, a polymath. He did not without reason win the 2015 Financial Times Best Business Book of the Year Award: Rise of the Robots – Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future is the first book in the 21st century which succeeds to combine the impacts of technology and economics onto mankind. It therefore rightly deserves to take the book award from the 2014 winner Capital in the 21st century, because Thomas Piketty’s analyses of wealth accumulation is an important building block of modern economics, but only half of the picture. Ford makes it complete and gives us an unparalleled outlook of which scenarios lie ahead.
 
Ford himself provides a synopsis of his work which leaves not much to add on: Jobs remain the primary mechanism by which purchasing power gets into the hands of consumers. If that mechanism continues to erode, we will face the prospect of having too few viable consumers to continue driving economic growth in our mass-market economy. He shares this assessment of the overall economic development with US billionaire Nick Hanauer, University of Connecticut professor of ecology and evolution Peter Turchin and of course French economist Thomas Piketty.
 
But Ford also dares to weave the looming unemployment scenario caused by increasing automation into a larger picture, which by some readers like Guardian journalist Jerry Kaplan is perceived as yet another apocalyptic message from robot hell. I can’t understand why Ford’s almost messianic effort to draw the reader’s attention to the probably single most important economic problem of our era, the distribution of wealth and the potential destruction of wealth through cybernation, should not receive a positive overall review. FT’s Edward Luce gives full credits to Ford’s work, but he still concludes his solution to be idealistic: Ford’s answer is to pay every adult a minimum basic income — or a “citizen’s dividend”. There is logic to his remedy but not much realism. My forecast is that cars will fly before that happens. My guess is, that it might be not so long until cars will actually fly.
 
Rise of Robots takes the reader on a rollercoaster ride through the latest technological achievements in automation, visual and audio recognition, 3D printing, autonomous vehicles and molecular manufacturing. Yes, all we have seen in the Star Trek episodes will eventually be possible. Ford continues his synopsis as such: As this book will make clear, advancing information technology is pushing us toward a tipping point that is poised to ultimately make the entire economy less labor-intensive. However, that transition won’t necessarily unfold in a uniform or predictable way. Two sectors in particular – higher education and health car – have, so far, been highly resistant to the kind of disruption that is already becoming evident in the broader economy. The irony is that the failure of technology to transform these sectors could amplify its negative consequences elsewhere, as the costs of health care and education become ever more burdensome.
 
Niall Fergusson argued in his 2011 oeuvre Civilization – The West and the Rest, that six novel complexes of institutions and associated ideas and behaviors distinguished the West from the rest and were causal for the Eurasian world dominance for the last 500 years. These killer applications are competition, science, property rights, medicine, consumer society and work ethic. I was always of the opinion that technology as a product of science is a much-underestimated driver of progress and in particular in China the main factor for pushing millions of people out of poverty within a few decades only; even more so if we acknowledge the quasi absence of property rights. I have to admit though, that the consumer society was never so much on my radar, but Ford’s book confirms Fergusson’s thesis that it constitutes a superior pillar of civilization. I believe thought that we will have to ask us in the close future if not now, if there is not a seventh element missing to take our civilizations to the next level. Republican atheist Fergusson is completely oblivious to this element; Ford’s writing is clearly driven by this element, but he does not dare to name it. For the sake of giving this seventh element a name, let’s call it empathy.
 
Technologists and economists are rational people who are by professional code not allowed to talk or write about the non-scientific or even religious, but as a befriended Buddhist entrepreneur told me recently: we are not only at the tipping point of a technological revolution which will shatter the labor market as we know it, but we are also at a tipping point of how to perceive ourselves. Does man think of himself essentially as good or evil? And can he turn this self-perception outwards to make this world a better place to live in? Economic terminology like access to labor market and access to the consumer society is well understood in spiritual doctrines. The Christian Great Commandment Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself or the ethic conduct of the Buddhist eightfold path call for such economic thinking and behavior.
 
Ford quotes the liberal economist Friedrich Hayek a society that has reached a certain level of wealth can afford to provide for all. Does this imply that even the godfather of modern liberal economics embraces a basic guaranteed income? Hayek’s term Great Society comes remarkably close to the Christian understanding of the second commandment in particular if paired with his idea of an evolving government role; nevertheless it is not Marxist in its essence. A basic guaranteed income would only provide a minimum material equality, but never an intellectual or spiritual one. With advancing cybernation future governments are enabled to provide such a minimum subsistence. Ford did the maths and argues that it pays for itself. So what do we wait for? That cars fly?
 
The only question that remains unanswered but is substantially discussed by Ford is which accompanying measures are required to implement a basic guaranteed income. Would large swaths of the population turn into ignorant and obese consumers? Wait, isn’t that already the case in some industrialized nations? We are told that the Peltzman Effect will most likely lead recipients of a basic income to more risk taking and one of the consequences would be more entrepreneurs; something existing entrepreneurs might be afraid of. Self-improvement and enterprise start-up classes might therefore become a viable instruction content; even more so if the devaluation of credentials continues als the author describes.
 
Living in one of the globe’s largest urban areas, I am especially attracted to the impact of a basic income on rural areas. People would most likely move back into abandoned villages and could both invest their energies into landscaping and self-need agriculture. Urban spaces, which have by many been dubbed death zones in case of emergency, would benefit from reduced economic pressure due to unsustainably high housing, schooling and medical pricing. So, spread the word, in particular in China that Marxism 2.0 has arrived. Technocrats both good and evil minded will love it.
Comments

FILM REVIEW: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (2001)

11/17/2016

Comments

 
Picture
Artificial Intelligence (2001) by Stanley Kubrick and Steven Spielberg
 
IMBD’s short summary of the movie reads like this: A highly advanced robotic boy longs to become "real" so that he can regain the love of his human mother. That might be the plot of the movie, but beneath this masterpiece which is based on Isaak Asimov’s novel, there loom quite a view serious questions and both the author and the directors play with some of our most ancient human fears.
 
The more I touch upon Isaak Asimov, the more I wonder about his prodigy. Biochemistry professor and one of the most prolific science fiction writers of all time. I admit though that I will have to read his books, because one can clearly feel Mr. Kubrick’s well known negative outlook upon humanity throughout the movie. I enjoyed watching Kubrick’s movies when I was young, but now at mid-age, I feel like he lacked until the end of his life necessary optimism. All his famous films like Eyes Wide Shut, Clock Work Orange or 2001 - A Space Odyssey could well be labelled horror movies. If compared to Steven King, for example, they seem to be much closer to our lives, situated somewhere at the margins of reality. 
 
AI has two main themes: respect towards the dreams and desires of organisms in the widest sense, which we don’t label human; and humanity’s limited place in evolution. The first theme finds its climax in the pool scene [which reminded my somewhat of Django Unchained], where a few boys start to pick on the android David and draw a clear line between Mecha, for mechanic and therefore not worthy of any respect, and Orga, for organic and therefore part of the supreme human race. One could substitute Mecha and Orga with Blacks and Whites, slaves and citizens or ape and man during certain periods of our history. All these categorize boil down to the same essence: once an organism is excluded from our common myths of human rights and national constitutions, we seem to get a license to channel all our rage and frustrations against that individual or group of individuals. Asimov elaborated on this theme already in Bicentennial Man, which was turned 1999 into a movie, exhaustingly. The fresh flesh arena, where expired or criminal androids are destroyed in a spectacle which is a mixture between a public medieval decapitation, a Roman gladiator games and a modern US style wrestling competition, shows how that future society tries to vent its individual and collective psychopathological energies in a regulated albeit cruel method.
 
The second theme dominates the later part of the movie and creeps in somewhat unexpectedly. Yes, artificial life enjoys a center stage throughout the movie, but only after our miserable android boy David has spent 2000 years frozen at the bottom of the ocean being excavated in a futuristic archeological site, we realize that the human race is extinct. Artificial intelligence shaped in slender, asexual humanoid bodies has evolved into the dominant life form. Evolution has seemingly eliminated all the negative characteristics of mankind; our successors are intelligent beyond measure and emphatic beyond imagination. They recognize the Androids psychological set up, i.e. only my mommy’s love will make me happy, and try everything within their power to realize his dreams and fulfill his desires.
 
A grand but frosty movie. I am amazed how Spielberg managed, despite Kubrick’s death, to match the master of gloominess’ directing style. Both film and book are great works of art. My criticism is therefore straightforward onto its relevance for our reality. Kubrick died too early as to enjoy the benefits of cognitive behavioral therapy. It would have been a pleasure to watch only one of his movie’s with an optimistic twist instead of all this predictable pessimism. As for Asimov’s novel, I have a similar line of argument: the first two thirds of his novel feel like a waste of time and I would have preferred more contents on artificial intelligence. Neither the movie nor the book deserve that title, because what we get is more a treatise on artificial emotion. And how easily could have Asimov short cut this theme, if he had allowed his engineers to reverse program the Mecha’s imprint. Something much more difficult to succeed with in an Orga’s psyche.
Comments

Should we be afraid of AI? 

5/27/2016

Comments

 
Machines seem to be getting smarter and smarter and much better at human jobs, yet true AI is utterly implausible. Luciano Floridi, professor of philosophy and ethics of information at the University of Oxford, asks why?
Picture
Comments

    Archives

    May 2023
    March 2023
    January 2023
    October 2022
    May 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    January 2020
    October 2019
    February 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    February 2016

    Categories

    All
    AI
    Alienation
    Anthropocence
    Artisanship
    Automation
    Basic Income
    Brotherhood
    Capitalism
    Circular Economy
    Cities
    Compassion
    Compulsive Hoarding
    Consumerism
    Countryside
    CSR
    Education
    German Elections
    Gratitude
    Human Development
    Identity
    Information
    Language
    Learning
    Materialism
    Meditation
    Metamorphosis
    Migration
    Mindful Consumption
    Parenting
    Purpose
    Purpose And Midlife Crisis
    School
    Transformation
    Travel Industry
    Wildness
    Work
    World Order

© 2015